I don't know if this is already established science, but I've been trying to conceptualise the notion that gravity is warped spacetime in my own way - as follows:

I started by considering how a 2D graph of space (y axis) against time (x axis) behaves when bent around a sphere - so that the y axis goes up and around the sphere vertically, and the x axis wraps around the middle of the sphere horizontally. If you were to draw a horizontal line anywhere along y axis (y=n) when the graph is in 2D, that line would get curved when bent around a 3D sphere to eventually meet the x axis in just the same way that the y axis does - like a falling motion. This represents the rate of decrease of distance between two points in space (acceleration) relative to one another simply by conceiving of time in an extra dimension.

Of course, this can be represented on a 3D graph just as easily, if not more easily, with a curved line that looks horizontal when viewed straight along the z axis (a second time axis) at the y (spatial) coordinate where it starts. As you rotate the view 90 degrees to look down the y axis, the curve becomes more and more pronounced.

I've since been pondering the famous F=ma equation, and rearranging it to be in terms of time with two dimensions - more specifically rate of change of time: 1/time^2 or t^-2. The "a" in the equation is of course "m/s/s" (metres per second squared i.e. acceleration, "a"), so if you divide both sides of the equation by a product of mass (m) and distance (d), you get t^-2 = F/md

This equation elucidates the description of force (F) as proportional to the rate of change in time i.e. the rate at which time is bent along a second dimension. Interestingly it also shows how the degree to which time is curved is inversely proportional to distance, which is quite intuitive when you consider that when time is curved around a second dimension (something is accelerated due to a force), the vector distance between the start point and the end point is reduced. What is also interesting is how it shows that mass is inversely proportional to time curvature, which to me perhaps suggests that mass is the result of a lack of curvature (in contact with it you don't accelerate), yet the force around mass (gravitational field) that isn't the mass itself is where time is being curved around a second dimension and acceleration does occur. Most interestingly, I think, is that this conception does away with the mystery of inertia (see Newton's laws of motion).

If there are any scientists (or otherwise I suppose) who have any input here, I'm interested in what feedback you have to offer.

This makes sense.One way of indicating that in a funny way is that c^2, taken as a 2d surface of c, explicates m, through this whole field c^2 in which it could work itself out in time, as that full potentials net explicated working, e.

Gravity is more the effect of spacetime on objects of mass rather than a fundamental force

The straight line on a 2D sheet of paper can also represent how light behaves around objects of massIf that sheet of paper is curved to represent 3D space then the straight line on it becomes curved too But light still travels in a straight line or a geodesic through space which is what is really curved here

surreptitious75 wrote:Gravity is more the effect of spacetime on objects of mass rather than a fundamental force

I agree with that.

My theory is:

The expansion of the universe is accelerating and since the objects inside the universe are not also expanding, I conclude that spacetime itself is welling up from every point in spacetime at a constant rate (and since spacetime is getting bigger, it is getting bigger faster as more points are created by the expansion). Matter is a function of spacetime itself (since matter cannot exist outside of spacetime) and therefore we could say that matter is "made" of spacetime rushing into it as if under some "pressure" (similar to a continuous electron flow into a pixel on a computer screen). Rather than objects having a force that pulls other objects closer, objects are simply riding the spacetime that is flowing into matter all the time. If 2 objects are so far apart that the amount of space created between them exceeds the amount of space required to generate that amount of matter, then the objects will move farther apart forever. I'm curious what Alan Guth thinks of my idea, but I don't have the balls to ask him

barbarianhorde wrote:Gravity is just a mathematic of acceleration.But light can't accelerate, so it is ultra light.

I wonder if in acceleration, time moves in more fps. lol.

Because velocity is increasing, time should slow, but I'm not sure what that would do to the frame rate.

Velocity of a charged particle produces an electric field and acceleration of a charged particle produces a magnetic field in addition to the electric field which produces an electromagnetic field or light (heat). All EMF is heat because heat is defined as energy in motion. I wonder if a charged particle in the presence of gravity will give off heat as if it had been accelerated.

Serendipper wrote:Velocity of a charged particle produces an electric field and acceleration of a charged particle produces a magnetic field in addition to the electric field which produces an electromagnetic field or light (heat). All EMF is heat because heat is defined as energy in motion. I wonder if a charged particle in the presence of gravity will give off heat as if it had been accelerated.

This made me think weird things. Maybe light only gets charged as light in the presence of gravity. Maybe a photon outside of gravitational fields doesn't even have the potency. No fuccing clue though.... I don't wanna say some outlandish nonsense and claim its science.

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

Hence black holes: even light cannot escape its gravitational pull up until its event horizon.

Light has no mass, so something else is causing this - i.e. the curvature of spacetime.

I'm suggesting that even gravity itself is just a name for curvature through a second time dimension. There never was "gravity" in the first place, just topology.

My theory for the expansion of the universe is that it's just "uncurving" spacetime. This is why light can't keep up with it all - despite the incredible speed of light it can't keep up with space and time unfolding against it. If it could, then we would only ever see light from all the stars in the universe shining down on us. But as it is, the observable universe has a limit, so only a limited number of star's light reaches us and so we only see dots in the night sky instead of plain whiteness.

Hence black holes: even light cannot escape its gravitational pull up until its event horizon.

Light has no mass, so something else is causing this - i.e. the curvature of spacetime.

I'm suggesting that even gravity itself is just a name for curvature through a second time dimension. There never was "gravity" in the first place, just topology.

My theory for the expansion of the universe is that it's just "uncurving" spacetime. This is why light can't keep up with it all - despite the incredible speed of light it can't keep up with space and time unfolding against it. If it could, then we would only ever see light from all the stars in the universe shining down on us. But as it is, the observable universe has a limit, so only a limited number of star's light reaches us and so we only see dots in the night sky instead of plain whiteness.

Watch here at 25:40 and especially at 28:33

Space itself is flowing into a black hole and the guy says "objects must approach the speed of light just to stay at rest." The reason light cannot escape a black hole could be that space is moving faster than light, which makes the mass of light irrelevant.

Light has mass given by m=hf/c^2, but I'm not clear whether mass has anything to do with gravity or just space itself or both. I prefer to see matter as drawing space in and all other matter simply goes along for the ride. If light can only move at the speed of light, you have to wonder what light is doing inside a black hole, well, it's moving at the speed of light with respect to the space that is flowing in at the speed of light.

barbarianhorde wrote:Even possibly, light has only potential because of gravity.

But it should have a mass, like a Plack-mass or something.

Hot coffee has more mass than cold coffee because E=mc^2.

Not sure, as heat means the atoms are vibrating more and the molecules need more space. So the density actually becomes less which Im sure is more significant than alterations on quantum level. So I mean a cold cup poured to the brim is prolly heavier than a hot cup poured to the brim.

E=hf as well, so mc^2=hf and m=hf/c^2. Mass is a function of frequency.

But something still must have that frequency and every something has mass... no?

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. ~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

barbarianhorde wrote:Even possibly, light has only potential because of gravity.

But it should have a mass, like a Plack-mass or something.

Hot coffee has more mass than cold coffee because E=mc^2.

Not sure, as heat means the atoms are vibrating more and the molecules need more space. So the density actually becomes less which Im sure is more significant than alterations on quantum level. So I mean a cold cup poured to the brim is prolly heavier than a hot cup poured to the brim.

Density is mass per volume but should really be stated as energy per volume, but we like to differentiate between matter and energy where matter is just stable bundles of energy that do not release their energy easily (we need nuclear reactions for access it).

E=hf as well, so mc^2=hf and m=hf/c^2. Mass is a function of frequency.

But something still must have that frequency and every something has mass... no?

Yes but the thing that has the frequency is also made of energy which has its own frequency.

Silhouette wrote:I don't know if this is already established science, but I've been trying to conceptualise the notion that gravity is warped spacetime in my own way - as follows:

I started by considering how a 2D graph of space (y axis) against time (x axis) behaves when bent around a sphere - so that the y axis goes up and around the sphere vertically, and the x axis wraps around the middle of the sphere horizontally. If you were to draw a horizontal line anywhere along y axis (y=n) when the graph is in 2D, that line would get curved when bent around a 3D sphere to eventually meet the x axis in just the same way that the y axis does - like a falling motion. This represents the rate of decrease of distance between two points in space (acceleration) relative to one another simply by conceiving of time in an extra dimension.

Of course, this can be represented on a 3D graph just as easily, if not more easily, with a curved line that looks horizontal when viewed straight along the z axis (a second time axis) at the y (spatial) coordinate where it starts. As you rotate the view 90 degrees to look down the y axis, the curve becomes more and more pronounced.

I've since been pondering the famous F=ma equation, and rearranging it to be in terms of time with two dimensions - more specifically rate of change of time: 1/time^2 or t^-2. The "a" in the equation is of course "m/s/s" (metres per second squared i.e. acceleration, "a"), so if you divide both sides of the equation by a product of mass (m) and distance (d), you get t^-2 = F/md

This equation elucidates the description of force (F) as proportional to the rate of change in time i.e. the rate at which time is bent along a second dimension. Interestingly it also shows how the degree to which time is curved is inversely proportional to distance, which is quite intuitive when you consider that when time is curved around a second dimension (something is accelerated due to a force), the vector distance between the start point and the end point is reduced. What is also interesting is how it shows that mass is inversely proportional to time curvature, which to me perhaps suggests that mass is the result of a lack of curvature (in contact with it you don't accelerate), yet the force around mass (gravitational field) that isn't the mass itself is where time is being curved around a second dimension and acceleration does occur. Most interestingly, I think, is that this conception does away with the mystery of inertia (see Newton's laws of motion).

If there are any scientists (or otherwise I suppose) who have any input here, I'm interested in what feedback you have to offer.

Okay, why are we discussing spheres? Gravity is emitted by any shape, including borg cubes.

I don't think it was a bad question, but opportunity to show that a sphere is just a consequence of packing as much mass as physically possible into the smallest possible shape. It's a question of why are spheres, spheres.

And radiance from a point should form a sphere unless there is some outside force causing it to form some other shape.

The borg have their own sort of gravity where everything and everyone are assimilated into the borg, which for some reason is a cube. Probably because cubes signify artificial order (intelligent life - aliens) instead of the usual spheres seen in nature.

We are talking about spheres because planets are spheres and are large enough to have detectable gravity.

Atomic gravity is nearly undetectable.

The purpose of the original thesis was to explain planetary motion, assuming the planets are spheres. However since gravity applies also to cubes, the thesis fails to explain gravity in terms of planetary motion.